Saturday, November 14, 2015


( This article is published in “CLASS STRUGGLEORGAN OF CPI ( ML ) CENTRAL COMMITTEE , September 2015 issue.)

“Whole history of mankind (since dissolution of primitive tribal society holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, “contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed”......The exploited and oppressed class the proletariat cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class-the bourgeoisie-without at the same time once and for all emancipating the society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class struggles”. “This proposition of Marx is destined to do for history what Darwin’s theory had done for biology”. - Engels, In the Preface to Communist Manifesto.

The subject of Relevancy of Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels in 1847, in the present stage has become an important-subject matter of discussion at present in political circle.
1. Marx, in repudiating the theory of Dialectical Idealism of Hegel, his teacher in philosophy and a very distinguished philosopher of Germany of a time, well-proved and well established the theory of Dialectical Materialism. By this, he created a topsy- turvy situation in Philosophy. He explained the development of human society in dialectical process with the Theory: ‘From matter to knowledge’, opposed to the theory: ‘From Supreme idea to matter’ of Hegel. The Dialectical materialism has become the material of thinking of the exploited people for making them free from the idea of ‘Fate’, ‘Destiny’ or ‘Divine Order’, that is: Fatalism with respect to system of exploitation over them.

2. Marx, on the basis of this materialistic dialectics, explained the class division and contradiction in the system of production at a stage of society, indicated the trend and way towards change of society. It is epoch-changing contribution to social science. In the realm of this though, his very close friend, Engels, was a fellow traveller. He has also made immense theoretical contribution in this subject. But, on the whole, as the contribution of Marx was main, this though has become known as Marxism.

3. Marx and Engels have put forward the theory for change of society through class struggle due to creation of classes and class contradictions in the society at a stage of economic system of the society in the process of social development. They have announced: “The class struggle is the key to change of society’, ‘driving force’ of history’, ‘Lever of social revolution’. “The class struggle is the immediate driving force of history and in particular the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat as the great lever of modern social revolution”. (Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondences (Moscow) page 395)

4. Marx and Engels have advanced proposition for the advance of human society to Communist Society. In this course, they have explained in the affairs of economics as to ‘Value of commodity’, ‘creation of surplus value’ by the labour power engaged in production, ‘exploitation of labour power’, ‘accumulation of capital’, the theory of class struggle, ‘Revolution and Dictatorship of the proletariat’ as its basis. Marx wrote the book ‘Capital’ on the basis of economic theories. After writing of capital it has become known in Europe as ‘Bible’ of the working class. On the other side the bourgeois class described it as an ‘endeavour to rouse jealousy in the mind of illiterate person.

After publication of Marx’s lecture- series-article; WAGE, LABOUR and CAPITAL, the German-secret-police organization wrote in a confidential report: “This noxious paper must indisputably exert the most corrupting influence upon the uneducated public to whom it is directed. The alluring theory of dividing up of the wealth is held out to factory workers and day labourers as an innate right and a profound hatred of the rulers and the rest of the community is inculcated into them. There would be gloomy outlook for fatherland and for civilisation in such succeeded in undermining religion and respect for laws and in any great measure infected the lower class of the people by means of press and these clubs.....the circumstance that the number of members (of workers union) has increased from thirty seven to seventy within a few days is worthy to note” (Marx: Man and Fighter:-Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen- Helfen: Penguin Book page 137)

This Marxian Economics is completely different from Bourgeois Economics. In it also lies blossoming of certain unblossomed theories of certain economic theoreticians of the past. On the whole it has become a ‘Political Economy’. This Economics is the material basis of the Communist politics with Marxian thought.

5. Marx and Engels were not subjective theoreticians with leisured life. They were organisers of political taking upon themselves all risk to give shape to their theories. Marx was driven out from different bourgeoisie states of Europe for his political thought and activities.

In 1847, in Europe, with active role of Marx and Engels, the communist league was formed secretly as a political organization. Between December 1847 and January 1848, the Communist Manifesto was written with joint-leadership of Marx and Engels as a Programme of the Communist League (Manifesto of the Communist Party). This has become the guiding document of Communist politics. This was necessary as, at that time, several types of thought of socialism were in existence in Europe. Engels said that though there was joint leadership in writing this document, Marx was the main protagonist of its basic proposition of thought. Engels stated: “The proposition is: that in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up and from which alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of the primitive tribal society, holding Land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class-the proletariat-cannot attain from the sway of exploiting and ruling class-the bourgeoisie-without at the same time and once and for all emancipating the society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class struggles”. “This proposition, which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin’s has done for biology”. (Engels: Preface to English Edition of 1888 of Communist Manifesto) Marx’s theory of social development is an important discovery of Social Science-just as the theory of Darwin in Biology. It is a scientific thought.

6. On the basis of this thought it has been stated in the Communist Manifesto: “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: “Abolition of Private Property”. Having given further clarification on this subject, it has also been stated in the Manifesto: “the distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property”. That is, Communism is the protector of social property and a creative process of retaining health of society generally; it is an establishment of equal right of all to enjoy the wealth of the society. It is neither a stoicism nor a ‘plagiarism’. It is a step towards buoyant development of human civilisation and society.

7. With the object of abolition of bourgeois property, the Manifesto, with a class outlook, altering the old slogan: “All men are brothers” of the Communist League, has brought in the slogan: “Working men of all countries, unite”. This outlook of Manifesto has become dreadful for the bourgeoisie. So in the introduction of Manifesto it has been mentioned that “the spectre of Communism is haunting Europe”: “A spectre is haunting Europe-the Spectre of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise the spectre: Pope to Czar, Metternich to Guizot, French Radicals to German police-spies”. Communist Manifesto is condemned by all sorts of Reaction.

8. In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels have put a declaration: “Emancipation of labour is not at all local or national problem-but a social problem-”Though, not in substance, but in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country, must of course, first of all settle the matter with their own bourgeoisie”. Hence the Communist manifesto carried the vision of basic change of the society. The internationalism of Manifesto is not without any prop: it is based on the flow of struggle from national level.

9. The first declaration of the Manifesto is: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle”. This class struggle is the basis of the Communist Manifesto that is of Communist politics. So at one time, Marx-Engels declared: “it is impossible for us to co-operate with the people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement” (Marx-Engels; selected correspondence: (Moscow) page 395).

10. Communist Manifesto, mentioned that the weapon the bourgeoisie used to dismantle has become a death giving weapon for them. It has stated: “The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself”. “....not only has the bourgeois forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield these weapons-the modern working class-the proletariat”. The weapon of class struggle which the bourgeoisie used to make the feudalism fall to the ground, will now be used against them; further in order to build up the capitalist society the bourgeoisie has given birth to which will be death giving for the bourgeoisie itself. The bourgeoisie has now become very vocal to resist it; but the history will work in its normal way. Communist Manifesto has brought this historical truth in the front.

11. The implication of the thought for creating new society by smashing the bourgeoisie-controlled capitalist society, which Communist Manifesto has brought, should properly be realised. It is not a matter of only freeing the proletariat from economic exploitation; It is an ending all sorts of economic and social discrimination and deprivation of the people of different stratum of society. By this, there will also occur elimination of discrimination, with respect to sex- based advantage and position of Man and Woman. The ‘secondary’ position of woman which has occurred in patriarchal society after breaking of matriarchal Society will also be eliminated. The women have become free from feudal bondage, in the capitalist society, which has been brought by bourgeoisie. Yet their economic subjugation to man continued to exist in it. The woman in bourgeois society is under domestic slavery. The bourgeoisie sees the woman as wife, a mere instrument of production. In this society the body of the women is sold as commodity, in the pattern of bourgeoisie commodity system. The prostitution of woman due to economic distress, has been legalised in bourgeois society. This position of woman would be removed in the new society which will develop through proletarian revolution because in the said new society, the labour power and social right of the woman will get full honour. The Communist Manifesto has described the position of woman in bourgeois society stating: “The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production ....Bourgeois marriage is in reality system of wives. The Manifesto has declared: “It is self evident that abolition of present system of production must bring with it the abolition of community of women, springing from that system eg, prostitution, both public and private”. Full honour of women will occur by having freedom from economic subjugation. Emancipation of women is the barometer of progress of the society. In exploitation free society which will grow after proletarian revolution, the man and woman will be moving in the courtyard of new culture, with mental feeling of monogamy in life, the Communist Manifesto intends to create it.

12. Communist Manifesto in its declaration has described that in order to create a new society, the systems which will be or are to be introduced with the dictatorship of the proletariat, after achieving the state power by the proletariat, through class struggle, will be of following nature: “These measures will of course be different in different countries”. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries the following will be petty generally applicable:

(1) Abolition of property in land and application of all land to public purposes;
(2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
(3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance
(4) Confiscation of the properties of all emigrants and rebels
(5) Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
(7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste land and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
(8) Equal liability for all to labour; Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture;
(9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of distinction between town and country, by more equal distribution of population over the country.
(10) Free education for all children in public schools; abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form: Combination of education with industrial production”.

The proposal of abolition of private property in land by which the land be nationalised, is not directly nationalism of land of middle and small peasantry; it would be to bring their land under co-operative with proposal of “social help” and not by any coercion (Decision of Basic Congress of 1 st Communist International and subsequent writing of Marx and Engels on peasant problem). Its object is to break the conservative attitude of peasants with respect to land gradually. These co-operatives are in the interests of the concerned peasants. The aforesaid proposals are not any sort of building of ‘castle in the air’ or ‘Rip van winkle plan’, but the objective step for the creation of new exploitation and class conflict-free society. In Soviet Russia, Lenin and Stalin and in China, Mao Tse Tung has taken steps to incorporate the above systems in the society and through such step, had brought before the people the reality of the thought of Marx and Engels. So they are the creators of real semblance of Communist Manifesto. But the social systems which have been created through their steps became alarming for the forces of reaction, bourgeoisie and imperialism.

Hence the reality of Communist Manifesto has got burning revelation. Communist Manifesto mentioning the creation of new social organization through the process of above system has put the declaration: “When in course of development, class distinctions have disappeared and all production has been concentrated in the hands of vast association of whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another”......’We shall have an association, in which free development of each is the condition for the development of all”. This is chivalrous of the bourgeoisie; but wholeheartedly acceptable for the destituted proletariat, it will be a blossoming of life for them.

13. In bourgeois society, human activities are not based on social feeling, but are based on basically the thought of ‘commodity’ and ‘wage’. That is the root of its culture. It has been stated in Communist Manifesto. “It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage labourers”. In the thought of aforesaid exploitation-free, class-less society, which the Communist Manifesto has brought in, the human activities will be resuscitated with Social feeling. A new culture will be created thereby. The basis of the thought of Marxism with respect to human social life is: ‘Man by nature is a social being and creative being; creation is the instinct of man in work’. In this matter the thought of bourgeois society is: Man is a selfish being; and without self-gain Man will have no instinct for work. The analysis Marxism is: “due to ‘deprivation’ in bourgeois society self gain instinct for work in Man has occurred”. After advent of new exploitation free society self-gain instinct for work will be eliminated: The man will be moving with instinct of work for creation.

14. The object of Communist Manifesto is not the solitary and isolated struggle of the Communist force, but an advancing in combination with different revolutionary struggles of the society. It has been declared in the Manifesto: “The Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things”. “In all these movements they will bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter, what its degree of development at the time”. Here lies the thought for formation of class front; and it is to be shaped through different realities.

15. Communist Manifesto has further declared that the Communists will fight for immediate interest of working class; that means that their struggle is not for immediate jumping to struggle for final emancipation of the proletariat; there will be a process. The declaration of the Manifesto is:“The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement”. On the whole, The Communists Manifesto is a historic document, a way showing to creation of a new society, free from explanation and class antagonism, having broken the bourgeoisie controlled capitalist society, through process of class struggle, with materialistic based social theory.


1.The Communist Manifesto has not put forward any sort of decorative plan or mechanical sketch of revolution with angle of vision of class revolution; And it is not even possible to do so, because it is dependent on situation; specially it would be considered with the background of organizational strength of the working class and surrounding situation.

In 1872, at the time of publication of German edition of Communist manifesto Marx and Engels wrote in its preface: ‘The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed”. But Marx and Engels were conscious about the necessity of creation of working class party, for conducting violent revolution of class revolution and on the subject of making other parties allies in revolution. In 1889 on 18 th December, Engels in a letter to G. Trier wrote: “We are agreed on this; the proletariat cannot conquer its political domination, the only door to new society, without violent revolution. For the proletariat to be strong enough to win on the decisive day, it must-and for this, as Marx and I have been arguing ever since 1847, form distinct from all other parties and opposed to them, a conscious class party”. “But that does not mean that this party cannot at certain moments use the other parties for its purpose. Nor does this mean that it cannot support other parties for a short period in securing measures which either are directly advantageous to the proletariat or represent progress by way of economic development or political freedom” (Marx-Engels; Selected correspondence (Moscow) page 492) In Communist Manifesto also there is expression of this thought and angle of vision of the activities of the proletariat.

2. The ‘Strategy’ and ‘Tactics’ of this proletarian revolution have been enriched through the activities under the leadership of the Communists Parties. In revolution of 1905 in Russia, Lenin, having given analysis of mental state desiring compromise with Czarism and vacillating tendency of the bourgeois class in revolution, advanced the proposition that ‘the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution would be completed under the leadership of the Proletariat. ‘In October Revolution in 1917, Lenin brought in the front the proposition that ‘the Socialist Revolution would be carried out under the leadership of the working class and on the basis of the worker-peasant alliance in the underdeveloped countries like Russia’. In 1919 having brought in the forefront, the subject of leading role of the working class in the anti-imperialist National Revolution in Colonies, Lenin advanced the proposition of establishing ‘link’ between ‘Socialist Revolution’ of advanced capitalist country and ‘Democratic revolution of backward and colonial country. This became fearful for the imperialism. In the case of colonial revolution the problem, arose in China as a result of defeat of Chinese Revolution, due to betrayal of Chiang Kai Shek, Stalin have taken to consideration the subject of armed resistance of the people led by the Communist Party of China against the armed attack of Chiang Kai Shek and advanced analysis that “the Chinese Revolution would proceed in the way of “armed Revolution with armed resistance and counter-attack against armed reaction”. On the basis of it Mao Tse Tung’s theory of People’s Democratic revolution took shape in China, against Imperialism, a section of native bourgeoisie as comprador to imperialism and feudalism. It is a stage of social revolution; basically democratic revolution-not socialist revolution-it is transitional to socialism. This is its significance. At present in the colonies, where transference of state power has occurred in the post 2 nd world war period, by a compromise deal between imperialism and big bourgeoisie in the wake of colonial liberation struggles, the main subject matter of revolution is also People’s or New Democratic Revolution. But in the present world situation its transition to socialism will be deeper. But in the affair of Revolution, the main point for realisation is: It is not possible to repeat the Revolution of one country in the same way in another country. The process of class mobilisation will vary from country to country. So the Revolution of Communist Manifesto should be viewed with objective look.


1.Marx and Engels had not seen the full development of Imperialism-only sow its initial countenance; yet what they had described about the full countenance of capitalism is as follows. “The bourgeoisie, has through its exploitation of world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country”. “To the great chagrin to reactionaries it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old established national ground on which it stood. All old established national industries have been destroyed or are daily destroyed......raw materials drawn from the remotest, whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe”.....”In place of old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency we have intercourse in every, universal interdependence of nations”....... it creates a world after its own image”. This is the world exploitation process of capitalism under the control of bourgeois class. The imperialist stage of capitalism has emerged through this process.

2. This analysis of imperialism which Lenin gave, on the basis of Marxian economic proposition, is as follows: “Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which dominance of monopolies and finance capital has acquired pronounced importance, in which division of the world among the industrial trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe amongst the great capitalist powers has been completed”.Imperialism is: Dominance of monopolies and finance capital and completion of division of world amongst the great capitalist powers. It is a higher stage in the development of capitalism. The conflicts and contradictions of capitalism inevitably exist in it. This is the location of world division amongst the powerful capitalist groups.

3. After creation of this world process of capitalism under the control of bourgeois class the war took place among the big capitalist groups for a share of division. Lenin has given the analysis: War is the concomitance of imperialism. It is an open expression of conflict of interest amongst the capitalists a ‘mobilisation of strength’ of each. Colony is created by capturing of backward countries. The colony is a guarantee of strength of monopoly capital. Further, in the entire system, the exploitation on the working class is also intense. So the question of taking a clear attitude about imperialism is a very important subject of communist politics. In this affair, the thought of Lenin is an extension of Marxism.

4. During the lifetime of Marx and Engels, a thought of “social Democracy’-which advocated the establishment of Socialism through democratic process’ arose inside the Socialist camp of Europe. It sought to correct or reject the theory of ‘class struggle’, ‘revolution’ and ‘dictatorship of proletariat’ of Marxism. It advanced the possibility of working class winning the state power through obtaining of majority of working class, by vote, in Bourgeois Parliamentary Democracy (as the working class is majority in population) and the establishment of Socialism ‘peacefully’. This idea kept in the oblivion the role of ‘force’ of bourgeois State-machinery. Marx and Engels described it as ‘petty bourgeois patch-work reform’ and declared that it could not be a “working class party”. Kautsky who became a chief theoretician of this ideology in his later period and who was also inside the camp of Socialist thought in Europe, put forward the analysis that “Imperialism is the development of capitalism to a new higher stage as advancement of “Super Imperialism” with unity of international Finance-capital without contradiction (exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital).

5.Lenin, in this affair, refuted this reasoning and analysis of Kautsky and also gave the analysis with respect to ‘subjects’ of ‘mutual contradiction inside different powerful capitalist groups’, ‘their main stay on colonies’, ‘crisis of capitalism’, ‘non-possibility of advancing trend of Imperialism etc, characterised Imperialism, as ‘parasitic capitalism’ which lives by sucking colonies, ‘decaying capitalism’, ‘moribund capitalism’. He condemned Kautsky as “Renegade”. Here lies the strong echo of condemnation, which Marx and Engels made against Social Democracy. In the 1 st World War of 1914, the Social Democracy, having kept the slogan of Nationalism in the front became the supporter of Imperialist war. Lenin, on the other hand, in opposition to imperialist war, brought in the front the theory of converting ‘Imperialist war into civil war’, made success of October Revolution in 1917. So the proposition of Lenin with respect to imperialism is to be or should be the main basis of the Communist politics; without this, it will be carrying of Social Democracy, that is, theory of Kautsky, in to the Communist politics.

6. In the post-2 nd world war period, with new division of world, the intense endeavour of certain imperialist groups, under the dominance of US Imperialism began to capture the world market with the strength of finance capital. With the strength of finance capital and deadly weapon, the object of US imperialism is to create the world with “its own image” Roosevelt, the President of American Federal State, announced: “Americanisation of the world is our destiny”. This intensified exportation of Imperialist capital Globalisation is the present structure of world exploitation of imperialism. This should be considered on the basis of the theory of Lenin; and real Communist force must decide its attitude about it. The theory of Kautsky is appearing anew to glorify this Globalisation; and it is entering in Communist Politics also. In this matter the under mentioned thought of Lenin requires deep study; “The imperialist ideology also penetrates the working class. There is no ‘Chinese wall’ between it and other classes. The leaders of so called “Social Democratic” Party of Germany are today justly called “Social-Imperialist”, that is socialism in word and imperialist in deed”. “Bourgeois scholars and publicists usually come out in defence of Imperialism in somewhat veiled form and obscure its complete domination and its profound roots; they strive to concentrate attention on partial and secondary details and do their best to distract attention from the main, by means of ridiculous schemes for reforms” (Lenin; imperialism; the Highest Stage of Capitalism) Lenin depicted the Social Democratic Party as “Social Imperialists”, it would be reasonable and justified to characterise the Communist Party which will extend support to globalisation of imperialist capital according to the depiction of Lenin.

7. The basic theory of ‘class struggle’ and ‘Revolution of the Communist Manifesto continues to be valid and strong reality in the present age, that is, in the situation entailing Globalisation of Imperialist Capital. In the present time, the property difference and conflicting situation therefore have assumed deeper intensity. The position, as shaped, in different countries, that is, in the world is: In one side, a very small number of population who control and enjoy the wealth of the society; and on another side a vast destitute masses who are deprived of real enjoyment of wealth. These are two opposite poles of the society.It has taken shape of an irreconcilable contradiction of the society. The mobilisation of strength to execute the basic theory of Communist Manifesto is the only
necessity of the situation. The declaration of Communist Manifesto-”United action of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat”-has now acquired a very wide dimension.

Marx and Engels, composed Communist Manifesto for the world proletariat. Yet Europe in the main was before them at that time. But in the present time the world court-yard has abjectly appeared for it. The working class of different countries, have become more closer to each other through cheap-world-labour-market. Hence the thought of proletariat revolution of Communist Manifesto will now be moving throughout the world through creation of different fighting fronts of the working class.

8. About the theory of abolition of “Private Property” of Communist Manifesto, which makes the Bourgeois-class panic-stricken and for which they spread panic, Communist Manifesto has stated: “You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society private property is already done away with for nine- tenth of the population, its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of this nine-tenth”.

In the present world situation, the private property lessness of vast distressed masses is the basis of the private property of small section. Advancement of society and advent of new civilisation will occur through crushing of this basis-it is what Communist Manifesto has depicted and has brought before the vision of the proletariat. It is deeply vibrating before the distressed masses.

9. In this affair the fight of the distressed masses, that is, the Proletariat, is the fight of the major section of population. It has been stated in the Communist Manifesto. “All the previous historical movements were the movement of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”. So the main strength of protection of minorities and their properties is their state-machinery. It is for this reason Communist Manifesto has brought the object of crushing the bourgeois state machinery, without which it will be impossible to build up new society.

The relevancy of Communist Manifesto should be considered on the basis of above mentioned realities not by any sort of mechanical thought.

10. In the post 2 nd world war period a thought arose inside the Communist camp, with ‘new’new orientation of old social democracy to win Socialism in a peaceful way, they claim, in the present age of Atomic and Hydrogen bomb, the theory of ‘class struggle’ and ‘Revolution’ of Marxism is obsolete and an ‘adventurism’. This was the creation of the post 2 nd world war epoch and a new challenge posed to Communist Manifesto. Soviet Khrushchev-KosyginGorbachev clique, brought this thought in the front.

They advanced the theory of ‘concluding movement of ‘Social Revolution’ in ‘peaceful way’ and of ‘integral universe’ without ‘class-contradictions. It is ‘Modern Revisionism’ in place of ‘reformism’ of old Social Democracy. This clique, in one side, in order to create disgust against Soviet system, hurled different slanderous attack on Stalin, who after Lenin, was the main architect of Soviet System for a long time; and, in another side, they rejected the character of Worker- Peasant Dictatorship of the Soviet-State and replaced with the idea of ‘Peoples State’; Further they introduced the elements of capitalist market economy in Socialist Economy. They created an atmosphere for devastation of the Soviet State. Taking advantage of it, the Imperialist conspiracy caused such devastating position. But this devastation is temporary. Still in Russia, the Communist force exist with strength. Yeltsin who was placed as state-controller, by the Imperialists, has now been removed from state-power. The Socialist system, on basis of the thought of Communist Manifesto which was been established under the initiative of Lenin and Stalin, has not been completely devastated. They exist as a rich experience and idea among the people. It is the sign of strength of Marxism; on the other side the character of Revisionism as anti-Marxism and destroyer of socialism stands exposed.

11. It is also to be observed in the present time that after death of Mao Tse Tung, a revisionist, clique, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping having rejected the theory of Mao Tse Tung, as to “forward leap to socialism” with new “class struggle” with the proposition that “after New Democratic Revolution” the National Bourgeoisie and Rich Peasantry are not the allies, but enemies of socialist revolution, advanced a theory of ‘Mixed Economy’, taking the Bourgeoisie and Rich Peasantry as allies and obtaining cooperation with imperialist capital; and dragged the Chinese economy towards the same. The property difference in economy has immensely been aggravated thereby, it has got state recognition. They have been catering it as ‘Socialism’ with Chinese characteristics”. They have retained ‘Single-Party’ rule, as if it is a ‘Dictatorship of Proletariat’. But with a political declaration they have extended invitation to the representatives of the capitalist and other classes who have ‘honestly earned property’ to be inside the Party. They have also announced that without owning full private property right advancement of China would not be possible.

According to their view also, the old theory of Marxism would not be applicable or relevant in the present age; its rectification is necessary. It is another countenance of Modern Revisionism-the  carrier of capitalism with new dress. It is essential to bring special consciousness among the working class and toiling masses, in the present time, about this Modern Revisionism. It is the responsibility before the real communist force.

12. It should be observed in this context that a turmoil due to mass fury against the ruler who are the protectors of the vested interest, has been spreading in Southeast Asia and other regions. It is motion towards a new mobilisation of the world proletariat. So the thought of Communist Manifesto should move with all intensity.

13. But in the present world situation while applying the basic thought of Communist Manifesto it is necessary to take a clear view and attitude towards certain questions:

At first, the definition of Proletariat should be looked into with new extension. The organised shape of entire distressed masses would be its basis. Objectively, the workers of unorganised industries are to be taken in fold, in organised form, with the workers of organised industries; and the ‘unorganised force’ which has been created with the blow of Globalisation of imperialist capital in different industries is to be taken as its main strength. In the present time, these forces will be ‘working men’ of the Communist Manifesto. Unity of Struggle of them is essential. Along with it, a clear thought and attitude should be taken on certain subjects mentioned here under:

(a) At one time, the manner by which the entire middle class was taken as ally to Democratic Revolution and Socialist Revolution, cannot be made applicable in the present situation, because in the present bourgeois-state container, the top heavy education system which has been evolved, one section of middle class, who can be called ‘upper middle class’, having been developed with highly expensive higher education, have secured the position as the administrative bureaucrats in State administration, education administration and in different organizations of imperialist capital and old colonial big capital. In the present revolutionary movement the role of them is ‘reactionary’. So they should be treated as the camp of reaction. Hence in the present time, the Communist Party which will bring them in its fold as ally, will be or will be bound to be the carrier of Reaction. At present, amongst the middle class, there is ‘middle section’. In industry and other working establishment they are ‘highly salaried’ employees. They have attraction towards Socialism – (as described in Communist Manifesto, a “petty bourgeoisie”)-they are vacillating in revolutionary struggle. They are bearing the ideology of social democracy with respect to Socialism. A ‘lower section of the middle class, which exists thereafter, among whom a distressful condition exists-are more closer to proletarian class. They are to be taken as allies to the struggle of the proletariat.

(b) In the present time in imperialist countries and even in industrially underdeveloped countries, ‘the labour aristocracy’ had grown with intensity. They are the creation of industrial employers. Lenin has seen the Labour-Aristocracy at certain stage as “Labour- lieutenants” of the bourgeois class. At present, it has taken more strong intensified position. The Trade Unions of the ruling party and the parties which are strongly tagged to parliamentary politics are their main political prop. They are now the agent of collective bargaining with respect to the demands of workers; they have arrived in alternative position of the administration of the employers as the governor’ of the workers, Marx and Engels have not seen the labour aristocracy; they have seen the opportunism
of Social Democracy in its primary position. This Social Democracy is the strength giver of labour aristocracy. Modern Revisionism in the present age is the pillar of labour aristocracy. At present it has become especially necessary to ‘corner’ the labour aristocracy in new working class movement with the angle of vision of proletarian revolution.

(c) In post 2 nd World-War period, in the colonies where transference of state power has occurred as a result compromise deal with Imperialism, due to economic policy of the new ruling group, the control of rich peasantry has grown in agricultural economy; and in their agricultural production system the ‘peasants’ have been converted to “land labour”. These land labourers landless and poor peasantry are the rural distressed masses, and they are to be taken as extremely close ally to proletariat in revolutionary movement; The rich peasantry would be the target of attack.

(d) The thought of “class party” of Communist Manifesto has caused birth of the Communist Parties in different countries. But, in the present time, the matter of purification of the Communist Party should be taken up with very seriousness and strong attitude; Because, in the present time, imperialism and Bourgeoisie-State power are using other methods in the name to smash the Communist Party than the direct methods of repression and attack: the main tactic of them is to pollute the Party in different manners’. Apart from it, in the present time, in one way, different types of ideology of Social Democracy ie., revisionism are entering the Communist Parties; and in another way, in organization process, there has occurred assembling in the party of the opportunists and advantage seeking elements. The removal of these from the party is essentially needed.

Specially, in the present time, the tested cadres in mass movements should be taken as the ‘base of the Party; the leadership also should be oriented accordingly; Further, in the community party, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao Tse Tung should be taken as successive personalities of Marxism-not in served or isolated manner. Out of these personalities, to accept one isolatedly would be a wrong step with respect to Marxism. In the present time the slumberous position of the Communist Parties throughout the world is a noticeable event. Hence, a properly oriented Communist party is a necessity of the situation. The implication of the under mentioned declaration of Marx and Engels should deeply be realised. “The emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class themselves: we cannot therefore co-operate with the people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie”. (Marx-Engels selected correspondence Moscow, page 395). Petty bourgeois dominated Communist Party will be incapable to be ‘real’ Communist Party for Proletarian Revolution. In the present time, it is observable that the petty bourgeois elements do prefer to get enter into the Communist party carrying parliamentary politics than separate Democratic Party’. It is a prop for their self-establishment. It is beyond possibility to retain revolutionary character and role of the Communist Party with flooding of this force into the communist party.

(e) In the present time in countries where transference of state power has occurred, a continued campaign and movement should be organised against the parliamentary ‘rulers’ and the said administrative system’, who or which is acting as collaborationists of imperialism and helping forces for Globalisation of imperialist capital; And the flow of it should be intensified in the movement of working class and distressed masses.

14. In the present situation the Communist Manifesto be applied and practiced taking the present process of exploitation of imperialist capital into view and on the basis of the basic thought of ‘class struggle’ and ‘Revolution’ of Communist Manifesto. We must make a strong declaration before the world proletariat that the Communist Manifesto continues to be relevant, fully living. Any declaration in the present time, as to extinguishment of the relevancy of Communist Manifesto would be acting as partisan to imperialism and its collaborators-the ‘vested interests’ and of playing the role of “enemy’ of the distressed masses.

15. In the present time, imperialism, through the process of Globalisation of its capital, has given birth to, with intensified exploitation, such a distressed mass force as its “grave diggers” which will put imperialism inside the grave according to infallible law of history. This is the present ‘Declaration of the Communist Manifesto'.

Saturday, October 31, 2015


(Contradiction in its present day context)

BY Com.Subodh Mitra – CEC Member, CPI(ML). (Published in 'CLASS STRUGGLE' organ of the Central committee of CPI(ML) July, 2015 issue)

India is a predominantly agrarian society with 68% of its population living in the villages. Out of this 65 percent of this population is dependent on agricultural produce and 5 percent of the population is dependent on handicrafts and other sources. Thus, it is the peasantry which happens to be the numerically strongest productive force in India, the important creator of our country’s wealth.

India has huge natural resources with ever flowing rivers, vast fertile agricultural land and it is a land of rich forest, sea and geological (water, natural gases, oil and minerals) resources. It is a country of unlimited human resources. In spite of having all this, our people see no ray of hopes in their lives. The problem of food, cloth, health, education and shelter remain unresolved. Joblessness and fanaticism dominate the country in place of education, culture and knowledge. In one word the people are groping in darkness without any freedom and safety.

The significance of this peasantry as a potential force cannot be exaggerated either. They had been the pioneers of our freedom struggle, and indeed the numerous peasant uprisings against British imperialism and its feudal allies had constituted the most important feature of 19th and 20th century Indian history. Keeping that glorious tradition alive, the peasant masses in different corners of the country continue to launch militant struggle for bread and freedom even today.

Yet it is a matter of great regret that ruling classes of our country had never cared to harness this immense strength and dynamical of the peasant masses to build a modern and developed India. Rather the peasants have remained neglected and constantly aggressed by the imperialist, the landlords and thereby bourgeoisie who have fleeced all the wealth produced by them.

It should be remembered that the emancipation of the protestant can never be achieved and completed unless it emancipate the peasant allies from the fetters of semi- feudalism. The creation of the modern India demands the unleashing of the creativity of peasantry. It is due to these reasons that we characterize the peasant problems as natural problem as the solution of which is a must if our country is to move forward.

The Indian people continue to be crushed by the poisonous of fangs of landlords, big bourgeoisie and imperialists even after the 1947 transfer of power.

The rural people who constitute an overwhelming majority of Indian population are tied of feudalism. The oppressed masses of rural people have nothing but hunger, poverty, ill health and unemployment as their property. They are rewarded with lathis, bullets, chains and jails as their ornaments.

By venture of wows of struggles of peoples struggles the ruling classes enacted several laws. They brought Land Reform Laws, Minimum Wages Act, Operation Banga Act, Forest Right Act, various forms of tenancy, Rights Acts, Untouchability Act, Prevention of Atrocities on SC ST Act, Women Act. But they were only aimed at sinking the people in illusions and are becoming useless for the people etc.

Right from the time of First Five Year Plan till today, the plans are drawn in the interest of landlords, big bourgeoisie and imperialists. Even they are drawn under the direct guidance of Imperialists.

In history this external hand in drafting our internal plan reveal that in the year 1950 a world bank team visited India, just before the first five year plan was begun. The world bank gave assistance even from the early 1950s onwards for the development of infrastructure. Chester Bowles, the then American ambassador to India brought wolf Lodinsky and Kenneth Fersons the American economists to guide and advise the Indian Government on Agricultural Policy. The staff of the Ford Foundation was also closely associated with the National Planning Commission. The world bank team visited India again and again during time of second five year plan was being formulated. American Food Aid Funds under PL 480 were used to promote American private enterprise and also to set up the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (ICICI), with the specific plan extending credit to farms collaborating with foreign concerns.

It is important to note that Prof. Wolf Ladejinsky and Prof. Kenneth Pensions were expert American economists who were deputed to India by the American Government to divert the ongoing Agrarian Revolutionary movement in India. ‘Ladgenski papers’ reveals that Land Reforms Act in 1954 was drafted to curtail and to divert the Agrarian Revolutionary movement led by the Communist Parties. The plan of distributing vested land under the leadership of Government was initiated as opposed to ‘Land to the tillers’ slogan of the Communists.

Unfortunately the then leadership of CPI had accepted this land reforms and abandoned the path of Agrarian Revolution and its slogan of Land to the tillers.

The Green Revolution in 1970, intensive farming, Blue Revolution, high yielding seeds, aquaculture-all these only aimed at breaking the backbone of peasantry and Indian Agriculture and serving the interests of multinational companies. The whole peasantry and Agriculture are subjected to market exploitation and price of spiral of fertilizers and insecticides.

Again the liberalization, privatization and globalization pursued by the Indian ruling classes had become potential tools in the hands of Imperialists and Indian Corporate Houses to penetrate into, lost and control the entire agriculture and rural sections in the interest of imperialism, big bourgeoisie and landlords combine. In this wake, the peasants are displaced from their rights over the lands, forests and natural resources and the vast masses of rural people are deprived of their means of livelihood and pushed into ruination in a big way in the name of SEZS, SAZS, other schemes like Corporate Farming-Contracts Farming-and other scattered development policy. These plan development Reforms Policies are being initiated by our ruling classes under the direct guidelines of imperialists.

Thus the Indian economy remains under developed, dependant on imperialism because agriculture, its main story suffers from stagnation. On the other hand, land-the principal means of agricultural production- remains alienated from the bulk of the peasantry who trill on land but do not own it on the main.

It is in fact due to the reason India is still remains semi-feudal and semi- colonial country in which two basic contradictions and (1) between Imperialism and the various Indian nationalities and (2) between Feudalism and the broad masses of the people crust.

In order to bring revolutionary change it is necessary to change the productive relations to unleash productive forces. In order to change the productive relations it is extremely important to understand the nature of our society and its contradiction in tentatively. Essence of dialectics is to study intentional contradiction without proper understanding of contradictions. We will fail to bring about revolutionary change or successfully adopt tactical time for social revolution.

With this view in prospect we need to discuss the basic question on Contradictions and the Principal Contradiction in our semi-colonial and semi-feudal country in order to draw the program of action for revolutionary social change in N.D.R. In other words to assert the stage of Revolution.

Meaning of the Principal Contradiction:-

Marxist-Leninist are always guided by the world outlook of “Dialectical Materialism” a phrase first framed by Plekhanov in 1891 to describe scientifically the “Consistent Materialism” of Marx and Engles. It is called “Dialectical Materialism” because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them is ‘dialectical’, while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its theory is materialistic. According to Engels (1894), ‘Dialectics is the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought. Lenin(1915) puts it precisely “Development or motion is the struggle between the opposites i.e. contradiction”. Thus everything is inherently contradictory (Hegel 1831) and development is the struggle of the contradiction. This is the University of the Contradictions. i.e. contradictions are universally existing.

But there are many contradictions in the process of the development of a complex thing (Mao, 1937) when we analyse a phenomena in it’s particularly to time, place, phase and context. One of them is necessarily the principal contradiction, whose existence and development determines or influences the existence and development of other contradictions.

Even in the principal contradiction, there is always a principal aspect which determines the character or nature of the thing or phenomenon.

When we accept the characterization of Indian Society as “Semi- Feudal , Semi-Colonial”, we also aspect the strategy of ‘New Democratic Revolution’ as the programme of Indian Revolution. Since the problems of India’s New Democratic Revolution can be solved only in conformity with the principles of Dialectical Materialism. We have to base our strategy and tactics on the very principles of contradictions themselves. By the very logic of the semi-feudal, semi –colonial system itself, we have to accept the existence of following contradictions;
*Imperialism and the Indian nation.
* Feudalism and the broad masses of the people.
*Bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
*Bourgeoisie and peasantry as well as petty bourgeoisie.
*Contradictions in the rank of the ruling classes.

Out of these contradictions, there are two basic contradictions. First is the contradiction between imperialism and the people of the oppressed nations and second is the contradiction between feudalism and the broad masses of the people. Whereas all other contradictions are secondary i.e. derived from the basic contradictions themselves. One of the differences, which existed in our C.P.I.(ML), is centred around the questions of principal contradiction i.e. recognition of the contradiction whose existence and development of other contradictions of our semi- feudal, semi-colonial society. Our unity convention of 2005 out of which CPI(ML) was born had seen the discussion on two different opinions on the question of principal contradiction in India.

The first opinion held, “The contradiction between the feudalism and the broad masses of people is the principal contradiction in India”. Feudalism, is thus the principal aspect of the principal contradiction.

The second opinion on other hand held, “The contradiction between the alliance of imperialism with domestic reactionaries and the broad masses of the people is the principal contradiction. Imperialism is the leader of this alliance.

Third position failed to determine the principal contradiction (KN’s Position).

As such nothing the opinions were discussed by the delegate of the unity convention was accepted as the official line. The comrades were asked to produce “document” of documents for the discussion. The present document has been prepared as a part of the fulfilment of the task assigned by the unity convention itself.

There are two aspects of the present subject. One is political aspect and the other is economic aspect. Both should be understood in order to have a comprehensive understanding.

An Economic Analysis of the Semi-feudal, Semi-colonial System:

Anatomy of the civil society must be sought into political economy. According to this principal, the anatomy of the principal contradiction must be sought into the political economy of the semi-feudal, semi- colonial system itself.

Maximization of the ‘surplus profit’ (super profit) has been the fundamental law governing both the capitalist policy of colonialism (i.e. the export of commodities) before 1870 as well as the imperialist policy of colonialism (i.e. the export of capital) after 1870. Marx has defined the surplus profit or super profit as the difference between more labour in exchange for less labour. “The favoured country recovers more labour in exchange for less labour, although this difference, the excess is pocketed as in any exchange between labour and capital by a certain class. Since the rate of profit is higher, therefore, because it is generally in a colonial country, it may, provided natural conditions (soil, atmosphere etc) are favourable, go hand in hand with low commodity prices. “Marx has made it explicitly clear that surplus profit which is the main regulator free exchange”. Rather, it can be recovered only through “forced trade” or unequal exchange i.e. exchange of larger amount for the smaller amount of labour. Thus without unequal exchange surplus profit cannot be recovered.

According to Marx, “One of the fundamental laws of the development of the capitalist mode of production is that the more the productive forces are developed, (higher the rate of constant capital to variable capital is allowed to grow) the more the proletariat is exploited, i.e. higher is the proportion of surplus labour to necessary labour. From this Marxist formulation a couple of contradictory inferences have been drawn.

As the productive forces are developed more and more, the actual daily and weekly wages go on rising higher. It means that wages are higher in the developed capitalist countries than the underdeveloped countries.

The more the productive forces are developed, the more the proletariat is exploited. It means that the relative price of the labour i.e. the price of the labour as compared both with surplus value and with the value of the surplus product stands higher in the backward countries (since the ratio of surplus labour is lower than the necessary labour) than the developed countries. Marx had summarized these contradictory inferences in following words. “It will be found frequently, that the daily and weekly wages in the first nation (rich country) is higher than in the second (poor country), while the relative price of labour i.e. the price of labour as compared to both with surplus value and with the value of the product, stands higher in the second (poor country) than in the first (rich country).

It means that a situation exists in which more and more wages are paid to less and less labour in a rich country, whereas less and less wages are paid for the more and more labour in the poor country. This differences in wages is the first source of unequal exchange.

There is the second source of unequal exchange also. It is the difference in the prices of primary products i.e. agricultural as well as mineral products and the manufactured articles. Marx had accepted the argument of all the bourgeois scholars right from John Start Mill to Ricardo that with the progress of the society with the development of capitalism, the exchange value of the manufactured goods would tend to fall, whereas the exchange value of the primary products drawn from agriculture and mines would tend to rise. In other words, the rate of profit will go on falling in the capitalist countries in course of their development. As Lenin(1916) and Bukharin(1917) have argued, since there has been regular and universal rise of the cost of primary products, imperialists are forced to struggle fiercely to control the areas of chief raw material or primary products as colonies or semi-colonies in order to maximize their super profit.

From the above brief analysis of the tendencies of capitalism made by Marx, it is apparent that capitalism in the developed countries cannot maximize its super profit without an unequal exchange nature, where more and more labour can be exchanged for less and less wages, where more and more commodities can be exchanged for less and less prices. This unequal exchange between the two countries is ultimately the unequal exchange between the labour and the products of a low productivity economy with those of high productivity- economy. This can be ensured only by the export of capital which links and subordinates the economy of the backward colonial as well as semi- colonial countries to the economic needs of the developed capitalist countries. This export of capital transforms the dialectical relationship between the two countries. The developed capitalist country is transformed into an imperialist country whereas the backward country is transformed either into a colony or the semi-colony. This export of capital generates, regulates, as well as maintaining a definite scheme of class-structure or class arrangement in the semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries without which no unequal exchange is possible.

This scheme of class- arrangement for the purpose of unequal exchange has been thoroughly investigated, discussed and formulated by the “commission for colonial and national question” as the 5“Triangular alliance” among imperialism, comprador capitalism and feudalism against the majority of the people in semi-colonies. The report of the commission was prepared under the Chairmanship of Com. K USSINEN of Finland, which is called the Colonial Thesis of Third Communist International” or “Colonial Thesis” in brief. It was adopted at the 6 th Congress in Sept 1928.

The colonial Thesis is supposed to be the second manifesto of the communist party prepared for the people of colonies and semi-colonies. Para 9, of the colonial Thesis says, “The recent history of colonies (and semi-colonies as well) can only be understood if it is looked upon as on organic part of the development of capitalist world economy as a whole”. “Where the ruling imperialism is in need of a social support in the colonies, it first allies itself with the ruling strata of the previous social structure the feudal lords and the trading and money-lending bourgeoisie against the majority of the people. Everywhere imperialism attempts to preserve and perpetuate all those pre-capitalist forms of exploitation (especially in the villages) which serve as the basis of or the existence of its reactionary allies”. Again Para 13 says “Since the overwhelming mass of the colonial population is connected with land and lives in the country-side, the plundering character of the exploitation of peasantry by imperialism and its allies (the class of land owners, merchants and money-lenders) acquires special significance.

It is thus this ‘triangle alliance’ against the broad masses of the people for their exploitation as super profit through unequal exchange that constitutes the principal aspect of the principal contradiction. Feudalism is assigned a role in this alliance, but not as a principal or leading force but as an ally of imperialism. No alliance can be formed without feudalism. As such a part of the surplus, not the whole of it drained from the people is shared by the feudalism. But the major part of the surplus is shared by comprador bourgeoisie and the imperialist forces among themselves. No class-struggle against such alliance can be waged without directing its edge against ‘the weakest link in the alliance’ i.e. Feudalism. ‘Agrarian revolution which is axis of New Democratic Revolution on the other hand, is directed not only feudalism alone, but against the whole alliance.

Super Profit’, ‘Unequal Exchange’ and ‘Alliance’.

Just as ‘Super Profit’ cannot be obtained without unequal exchange in the same way unequal exchange cannot be made without this ‘triangular alliance’. It is thus apparent that neither super profit nor unequal exchange is possible, if feudalism is allowed to be principal aspect of the principal contradiction. Let us see how without this triangular alliance neither unequal exchange nor super profit is possible. Lenin has described “Super Profit” (extra profit obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their own country) as the fundamental law governing the export of capital to both colonies and semi-colonies where labour, raw material, and land are cheaper and the capital is scarce. Consequently by the very process of the export of capital, capitalist mode of exploitation is super imposed (imposed from above or outside) on the feudal mode of exploitation, super imposed by the export of capital (through joint collaboration, joint- ventures etc.) on the feudal mode of exploitation is described, defined and characterized as the semi-feudal, semi-colonial mode of production.

Such a mode of production itself is the unity or alliance or co-existence between the two opposite modes of production the feudal mode of production i.e. small scale production based on manual labour operating through the formula of C-M-C and the capitalist mode of production i.e. large scale production based on machines operating through the formula of M-C- M. But according to Lenin, such alliance between the two opposite modes of production or the co-existence of large scale production based on machines side by side with the small scale production based on manual labour cannot continue for long simply because of the capitalist law of the development i.e. the law of the displacement of small scale production based on manual labour by large scale production based on machines. But the economic history of India of last 206 years. i.e. from 1853 when the net-work of railways was spread till 2008, reveals just the opposite trend. During this whole period there was very little displacement of small scale production by the large scale production, as a result of which there was no marked displacement or change in the share of the industrial product in relation to the total National Product from 1948 to 2008. It proves that share of industry in the Net National Product in 1948 was 17.2% and it remained almost the same i.e. 16.7% in 2008 after a gap of 60 years?

The analysis of the distribution of population confirms that there has been no displacement or change in the percentage of population engaged in industry either in 1911, there were 9.8% of people engaged in the industries and even after a gap almost (in 1981) 100 years, the percentage remains, almost the same i.e. 9.90% and even after.

This situation of no displacement of small scale production by the large scale production, no displacement in the shortage of industrial production or population either can be explained only in terms of the role which imperialism has played in India directly before 1947 and indirectly after 1947. “Capitalism in our country, because of the historical conditions of colonialism did not spring from the class-struggle of Indian people, from our soil by the efforts of national bourgeoisie of our country. Rather, it was imposed from above and outside by the imperialist bourgeoisie. As a result of it, capitalism, which was super imposed, was not competitive with feudalism. Rather it was complementary to it. Imperialism has maintained this unity, alliance or co- existence by paying two opposite roles just to preserve the condition of the “unequal change” through which super profit could be obtained.

Imperialism has encouraged the simple commodity production under the formula of C-M-C,(Commodity – Money - Commodity) while at the same time it has discouraged the extended capitalist production under the formula of M-C-M. (Money – Commodity – Money). So two unequal sources of exchange (C-M-C as the source of low-productivity economy and M-C-M as the source of high productivity economy) remains maintained in the economy. It is because of this alliance between the two partial modes of production, opposed to each other that the more and more labour and labour products by the imperialists. Imperialism exploits peasants and handicrafts by obtaining more and more products for less and less prices through the formula of C-M-C with the help of feudalism, and exploits working class (proletariat) by obtaining more and more labour power for less and less wages through the formula of M-C-M with the help of comprador bourgeoisie. This exploitation by the alliance of imperialism, comprador capitalism and feudalism constitutes the solid basis for another alliance for the class- struggle. It is the alliance between the working class and peasantry. It confirms that the alliance between the two parallel or opposite modes of production unequal in the level of productivity is the alliance for unequal exchange cannot serve imperialism with unequal exchange. The economic necessity of the unequal exchange rules out completely the possibility of feudalism, being the principal aspect of the principal contradiction in semi- feudal, semi-colonial country. The contradiction between feudalism and the broad masses of people is found to be the only basic and principal contradiction only in a feudal society with which no large-scale exchange is possible due to the predominance of Natural economy. On the other hand unequal exchange is impossible with capitalistically developed bourgeoisie countries. It is thus this triangular alliance in the semi-feudal,semi-colonial countries that forces the prices of the primary products exported there from to decline up to 40% from 1900 to 1945.

The assistance given by the rich countries to the poor countries compensated only less than half the loss suffered by under developed countries due to exports and unequal exchange.  

Due to the super-profit through the mechanism of unequal exchange, the development of capitalism in the imperialist countries become at the time a process of under development in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. This process operated in a couple of ways in India.The first is the way of draining away a large volume of “surplus” from India so that India cannot accumulate enough capital to make effective use of whatever potentialities it has in terms of human and natural productive factors. The second is the way of distorting Indian economy continuously so as to reduce it to a mere apparatus for supplying raw materials and for absorbing the obsolete products and technology of the advanced capital country. Thus, India is suffering predominantly not from the independent development of capitalism but from the insufficient development of capitalism.

Independent development of capitalism is a continues process of economic change in the magnitude and direction, consistent with and advantageous to the realization of the potentialities of human as well as natural resources of the country. Under development of semi-feudal, semi-colonial economy is on the other hand, a continuous process of economic change in the magnitude and direction, inconsistent with and detrimental to the realization of the potentialities of both human as well as natural resource of the country. 

Where as the development of capitalism is the result of “independence” in the process of economic change, the under development is the result of dependence in the same process of economic change. The “triangular alliance” is thus the alliance for under development is the result of dependence in the same process of economic change. The “triangular alliance” is thus the alliance for under development through the dependence of feudalism on comprador bureaucratic capitalism and the dependence of feudalism on comprador bureaucratic capitalism on imperialism i.e. on the import of capital through direct and indirect routes for their existence and survival. Liberation from underdeveloped means liberation from this triangular alliance i.e. from imperialism, from comprador bureaucratic capitalism, from feudalism at the same time by anti- imperialist, anti-feudal New Democratic Revolution.

The word ‘development’ is a neo- colonial concept for the third world countries, where imperialism and feudalism exist together. Susan George says “Development has been the password for imposing a new kind of dependences for enriching the already rich world and for shaping other countries to meet its commercial and political needs”.

Let us see how the system of triangular alliance works. Alliance between Feudalism and Comprador Bourgeoisie.

Agriculture is the foundation of the economy in India whereas industry is the leading factor 53% of gross national product is drawn from agriculture and allied economic activities. If handicraft products are added to it, this proportion reaches 61.7%-70% of the export items and products are drawn from agriculture itself. In the concrete conditions of India today the agricultural sector of economy is controlled by Feudal Lords mainly and the industrial sector of economy is controlled by “comprador bureaucratic capitalism” with direct help of imperialism. There are three grounds for the alliance between the two.

Feudal lords exploit the peasants and agricultural labourers, and compradore bourgeoisie, the industrial proletariat. Due to feudal oppression in agriculture, the class of compradore bourgeoisie is well assured of the continuous supply of cheap labour at 7 constant real wage rate. This is the first indirect service to compradore bourgeoisie by feudalism in India.

Feudalism is the source of the supply of cheap food grains and agricultural raw material to compradore bourgeoisie. Since the prices for the food grains and agriculture raw material are cheaper than the prices for the industrial goods and since the wages of the working class are fixed in terms of food grains, the class of compradore bourgeoisie is bound to get more profit due to feudalism.

Compradore bourgeoisie in India cannot survive without a “domestic market” from where they can recover the “loss” obtained in the international market, over which they can exercise their monopoly-type control. Some times this ‘loss’ is recovered directly by raising the prices of the industrial products and indirectly at times by the rise of administered prices of subsidies through the agencies of Govt. themselves who are the major consumers in the market.

In a country like India, the rural market for industrial consumer goods estimated to be two and half times the size of the urban market. In 1952-53, for instance, rural India absorbed industrial consumer goods worth Rs. 31 billion at current prices as against the urban consumption of Rs. 12 billion. In 1968-69 these figures were respectively Rs. 58 billion and Rs. 25 billion. Now it goes up to 108 billions. Under these conditions, compradore bourgeoisie cannot ignore the rural market.

Now, who are the major customers of industrial goods in the rural market? If the Indian data can be taken as the basis f or the generalization, it can be said that only 10 percent of the rural consumers consume as much as the total urban population out together. If this top ten percent in the rural areas are identified with the feudal lords and their associates, it is this class of feudal and semi-feudal forces which is the strongest pillar that supports the market for industrial production. Its share in the rural market is as high as one-third or so. (37.64% in the year 1968-69). It is the same class which rules over agrarian economy. This class of feudal lords transfers the major portion of the surplus obtained from the exploitation of peasantry and allied toiling masses to the compradore bourgeoisie through unequal sale and purchase.  

Alliance between the Compradore Bourgeoisie and Imperialism:

‘Foreign capital’ in the shape of investments, aids, loans, FDI-SEZ, machines and technology has been exported to India mainly in two forms. First is the colonial or direct form, second is the semi-colonial or indirect form. By the direct form, we mean direct foreign private investment only to be regulated by Foreign Exchange Regulations Act (FERA). By the ‘Indirect Form’, we mean foreign capital invested through indirect routes just as ‘joint collaborations’, joint- ventures’, ‘bilateral-cooperation’ and ‘investment in Govt. or Public sectors’. Under the new economic order neo- liberal policy today the direct foreign private investment from 1948 to 2008 in which U.K. and U.S.A. occupy first and second position in order or the size of capital invested with 28.7% and 26.7% respectively as their shares.

Secondly ‘indirect foreign investment approved by the Govt. of India’ from 1979 to 2008 in which USA and Japan stand first and second. Thirdly the picture of foreign collaboration is approved by the Govt. of India (1948 to 2005). Economically speaking a country is said to be a ‘colony’ when the ‘direct foreign capital from a single country dominates or rules the entire economy, whereas the same country is said to be a semi- colony when the foreign capital invested through indirect routes i.e. through joint collaborations and joint- ventures from different countries compete to dominate or rule the whole economic scene both in private as well as public sector. A ‘colony’ is thus transformed into a ‘semi-colony’ when direct rule is replaced by indirect rule.

India was transformed politically into a semi-colony from the British colony on 15 th August 1947, only after the British bourgeoisie sold and transferred their direct capital and other direct economic interests to the indirect control through joint collaboration and joint-ventures in partnership with J.R.D. Tata, G.D.Birla, J.K. and Sri Ram etc. In the ‘Private Sector’ and government itself in the ‘Public Sector (Railways for example) during 1945 to 1947. It was only after the publication of ‘Bombay Plan’ in 1944 based on mixed economy of public as well as private sectors by the representatives of Indian compradore bourgeoisie which accepted the necessity of foreign capital through the indirect routes of ‘technical collaboration’ and ‘scientific cooperation’ that this transfer of British capital from direct control to indirect control was effected. Now, India is a semi-colony because it is the foreign capital through the indirect routes that is dominating or ruling Indian economy today with the help of compradore bourgeoisie and feudalism. The transfer of power on 15 th August, 1947 itself constituted the political basis for the alliance between Indian compradore bourgeoisie and imperialism which can be economically described as the joint collaboration, joint venture, technical collaboration and economic cooperation. This alliance is getting strengthened everyday by the increasing number of foreign collaborations.

Through the ‘New Economic Policy’ of Rajiv Gandhi in 1985 followed the neo liberal policy adopted since 1991 the Indian compradore bourgeoisie wanted to solve the economic crisis of the system by choosing and changing their alliance with the different imperialist groups. This has created a rift in their rank by splitting FICCI on 17 th August, 1987 after 61 years of its existence. Now Assocham led by RJD Tata is throwing a challenge to the truncated FCCI led by Birla. Assocham i.e. Associate Chambers of Commerce and industry has now emerged as ‘secular’ organization of bourgeoisie with ‘diversity’; in religion and caste-Parsi, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Chettiars and some of the Hindu Marwari

On the other hand FICCI i.e. Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry had how become ‘communal’ organization of Hindu Bourgeoisie of Marwari-Gujarati and Sindhi origin with a few Sikhs and others as an exception. It is interesting to note that Nusli Wadia of Bombay-dyeing has joined Assocham which claims to be more representative of trade and industry in India than FCCI. Where as the rival of Nusli Wadia,Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani of Reliance is an active member of FICCI which claims to enjoy the fullest
patronage of Rajiv Govt. at the central level. Although both the rival groups stand for alliance and liberalization without any ‘discrimination’ from the side of Govt. the FICCI is in favour of ‘discriminative alliance’ technology and finance. Imperialism, on the other hand is also in need of an alliance with the third world bourgeoisie. The tendency of the ratio of profit to fall in mature capitalist countries is sought to be neutralized through rapid technological progress. 

The advancement of technology renders huge stocks of machinery and equipment obsolete, and unless these out of the date stockpiles can be profitably jettisoned somewhere, this escape route of United Nations, 64 percent of the machine tools in the United States in 1963 were ten years old or older. Comparable figures for the same year were 59 percent for United Kingdom, 59 percent for France, 57% for Italy, 55 percent for Federal Republic of Germany and about 50 percent for Russia. The report further says that according to the expert opinion, industrial equipment on the average ten years old should be replaced by new (or reconditioned) equipment in order not to slow down increase in productivity and not to increase production costs. On the basis of such criterion, in 1965 there were about 13,00,000 metal working machines already marked for replacement in the United States alone. Thus, there is a huge surplus of second hand equipment, and with it, the production facilities for producing such equipment also are simultaneously found to be outmoded. Advanced capitalist countries are thus always burdened with a stock of new as well as old, obsolete plant and equipment, which has to be disposed of profitably. Otherwise technical progress could be choked off. Most of the commercial transactions in second hand equipment are within the industrialized countries themselves. Export sales, represent only a small fraction of the total sales. 

For instance, United States machinery dealer national appropriation report that export sales for its members in 1964 represented only 22.4 million dollars i.e. 5.5 percent of the total sales. This need not be surprising that the third world countries account for only 7 percent of the total industrial production of the world as a whole. Yet without export of capital to the third world countries including India, the world capitalism would run into a serious crisis.

The compradore bourgeoisie of the third world countries on the other hand, require these second, third or ninth degree obsolete technology and equipment. Their industrial production is aimed at meeting the demands of the limited richest sections of the population-feudal lords, bureaucrats, officers, politicians and bourgeoisie themselves for which their home market is quite suitable. They compensate the high prices for the imported commodity capital and technology from the cheap labour, cheap raw material and cheap land made available to them by feudalism and semi-feudalism through exploiting peasants and tribal population. After all the fashions of New York, London and Paris take some time to reach Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Cairo.

Alliance between Feudalism and Imperialism

Even if, our country is achieved relative independent, feudalism renders a great service to imperialism first through its alliance with compradore bourgeoisie by creating a domestic agricultural market, for the products of manufacturing and chemical industries, for pesticides, fertilizers, tractors and pumping sets together with seeds of high yielding variety. It is the same class of feudal lords which acts as semi-feudal forces i.e. local money lenders, contractors, wholesale dealers, commercial merchants, proprietors for selling seeds, pesticides, fertilizers. It is the same class of feudal lords who acts as owner of cold storage holder of license-quota and permits truck-transporters for imperialism’s goods and commodities. It is on the other hand this imperialism which through the export of finance capital helps these semi-feudal elements with the loans from the banks. “Semi-feudalism” is the alliance of land-ownership with money lending capital. The whole of the alliance is stronger than the sum total of the individual parts. specially when our great country is pregnant with New Democratic Revolution. Actually, the alliance of feudalism with imperialism serves as the foundation stone of unequal exchange.

International and National Situation

The International Situation

The principal contradiction in the world today is that between imperialism and the oppressed nations. It is the contradiction which provided the basic threat to the ever depending crisis of world imperialism on the one hand, and of the semi- feudal, semi-colonial and neo colonial countries on the other. The other basic contradictions in the world are between imperialist powers between the socialist forces and the imperialists, and between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the capitalist countries.

Immediately after the Second World War and after the victory of the Chinese revolution and especially after the defeat of American imperialism in Korea, US imperialism began its decline. The international situation was characterized by the solidarity and expansion of the anti-imperialist forces with a solid socialist camp as their nucleus. The tide of the national and democratic movement in Asia, Latin America and Africa was on the rise, while the imperialist camp was splitting into factions. At that time the oppressed peoples of the colonial and semicolonial countries were not only objectively but also subjectively the real and conscious allies of the socialist camp against imperialism. In this situation, the ruling classes in a number of these semi colonial countries, were forced to proclaim an ‘anti-imperialist’ or ‘non-aligned’ stand as was the case in Egypt and India.

With the betrayal of the Russian revolution at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956, this extremely favourable situation a temporary setback. The soviet betrayal certainly had a major and negative impact on the international communist movement and created confusion in the minds of the people struggling for national liberation for a while. As a result, the contradiction between, imperialism and the oppressed nations came to the forefront and became more sharp.

Thus, although the presence of a strong and united socialist camp was an undoubtable advantage to the struggle of the oppressed peoples of the world, it would be incorrect to say that its absence changes the objective situation basically. The real barriers to the development and victory of the national liberation struggle in the majority of the third world countries, has been the lack of unified, mass- based proletarian parties and leadership and this has given scope for the soviet renegades under their revisionists henchmen and neo- revisionists in the third world to create more confusion and corrupt the ranks of the working class and toiling masses in their own interests. In fact, revisionism has become an international phenomenon.

But regardless of this or that socialist country becoming revisionist, and regardless of the uneven and weak condition of the genuine communist parties in most countries of the world, the objective situation continues to develop more and more favourable for the oppressed peoples and nations, while imperialism gets more and more deeply enmeshed in its own fundamental and irreconcilable contradictions.

As Lenin pointed out: We are ‘in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution’. In his scientific analysis of imperialism he said that imperialism is monopolistic capitalism, parasitic of decaying capitalism, moribund capitalism, and that it intensifies all the contradictions of capitalism to the extreme. He therefore concluded that “Imperialism is the enemy of the social revolution of the proletariat”.

The basic world contradiction as analysed by Lenin are still operative today and have been aptly put by Com Chou En-Lai in the report to the Tenth Congress of the CPC where he says. “Since Lenin’s death the world situation has undergone great changes. But the era has not changed. The fundamental principles of Leninism are not outdated; remain the theoretical basis guided our thinking today”. The report goes on to say that “the present international situation is one characterized by great disorder on earth. The wind weeping through the tower heralds a rising storm in the mountains”. This clearly shows that relaxation is a temporary phenomenon and great disorder will continue. Such great disorder is a good thing for the people, not bad thing. It throws the enemies into confusion and causes division among them, while it arouses and tempers the people thus helping the international situation develop further in the direction favourable to the people and unfavourable to imperialism, modern revisionism and all reaction.

The basic cause for this ‘great disorder’ and conflict is the fierce struggle for hegemony, re-division of the world.

Lenin described the essence of imperialism as being “a combination of antagonistic principles, viz., competition and monopoly”. In the sphere of inter-imperialist relations and especially among big powers this is also a basic law driving them into ever more bitter and fierce contention, even while certain other factors such as the relative balance of economic and military power between the Indian and American blocs, the fear of nuclear holocaust and the rising anti- imperialist struggle of the world peoples, force them into collusion for this very survival. But this collusion is temporary and superficial. Contention is permanent and basic-being a fundamental law of capitalism itself.

Thus the danger of another world war remains inherent in the situation, although the imperialists have tried to avert this by adopting the Nixon to Bush doctrine of ‘making Asians fight Asians’ and forcible occupation of Iraq and turned Iran into neo colony of US has threatened the existence of relative independence of semi-colonial in the world. And now under American Policy of re-division of world the military agreements.

This fundamental and growing contradiction and contention of the big powers for hegemony on the one hand, and their increasing exposure as oppressors and exploiters of the whole world, especially the third world, under the rising struggle for national liberation, on the other, makes it possible for the ruling classes of the oppressed nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America to resist coming under the complete control of a single imperialist power, that is, becoming a neo-colonial puppet. In other words, they are able to retain a semi-colonial status allowing them certain ability to manoeuvre and bargain between the contending imperialist powers. But these ruling classes can never take a stand against imperialist as a whole, even though they may go against one imperialist power in a given situation. They can only exist within the framework of world imperialism, tilting at most, towards this or that super power, in line with the particular concessions or support they need at any given time.

A semi-colony is economically, politically, militarily and diplomatically subservient to world imperialism. “Semi Colony” is a peculiar condition of state existence in the epoch of imperialism when the world has already been divided up between the imperialist powers. If imperialism was free from all inter-imperialist conditions and rivara lanes, it preferred policy would be directed colonization. But with inter-imperialist rivalry, to re-divide the world and extend the spheres of influence of the contending powers, direct colonisation becomes more difficult than before, and imperialism is forced to seek subtler and indirect methods of retaining and expanding its hold over the semi-colonial countries as well as the world markets, thus intensifying the contention more and more.

Thus, a country is able to retain its semi-colonial status in the face of inter-imperialist rivalry on the one hand and people’s struggle for liberation on the other. For the semi-feudal, semi- colonial ruling classes, this situation enables and also compels them to maintain a semblance of ‘independence’ and ‘non-alignment’, but which they can wring certain concessions from the contending imperialist ‘powers’ and also hoodwink their own people into illusions that they are ‘independent’, thus buying a little more time for their own survival. That his ‘non-alignment’ in reality only a dual or bi-alignment imperialist big super powers is today becoming more and more apparent to the oppressed and exploited peoples, who are rising in revolt against their comprador ruling classes and world imperialism in country after country.

The National Situation:

The Basic Contradictions,

The world is living in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution today. We cannot analyse any economic or political issue of national or international importance leaving imperialism aside, especially when India is a semi-colonial country. Lenin summarized the fundamental traits of imperialism among which the following three are important.

*The export of capital became extremely importance as distinct from export commodities.
*International capital monopolies were formed and shared the world among them.
*The territorial division of the entire world among the greatest capitalist powers was completed.

Hence, without fighting the imperialist politics of domination, no successful struggle is possible in a semi-colonial country. Since ML groups on the other hand, while recognizing India as a semi-colony, arbitrarily separated the anti imperialist struggle from the anti feudal struggle, thus one sidedly emphasizing the principal contradiction of the phase of agrarian revolution while totally ignoring and forgetting that the phase is part and parcel of the stage and that the phase is a tactic for realizing the strategic aims of both anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism.

India is a semi feudal, semi colonial country. This means that there are two basic social contradictions operating in Indian society. One is contradiction between feudalism and the great masses of the people, and the other is between imperialism headed by U.S. imperialism and the Indian nation. Apart from these two basic or fundamental contradictions there are a number of other
contradictions as well.

It is vital to locate and assert the basic contradictions in a society, and to determine the principal contradiction at a given time. This is because :  i) the stage of revolution is determine by formulating the basic contradictions correctly. The tactical line is determined by the phase, and to determine the correct tactical line we have to correctly asses the principle contradictions in the current phase. The basic contradictions of a particular society are the basis of social revolution itself.  ii) political contradictions arise and develop within phases and stages and caused by the basic and fundamental contradictions, and only a correct analysis and evaluation of the political contradictions can determine the correct political resolution or policy to be followed.

How do we determine the basic or fundamental contradictions? The contradiction between the productive forces and the production relations in a given society is the basis of social revolution. At a certain stage of development of society the productive forces come into conflicts with the productive relations of that society which have become obsolete, incapable of further life, and thus act as a fetter on the further development of the productive forces. In such a situation, the objective social law demands that these fetters be broken so that the productive forces can be unleashed and allowed to grow. In word, the law of social development demands a revolution in production relations. Thus follows a period of social revolution.

In India, semi feudal, semi colonial society, the predominant feudal production relations in the country side areas a basic obstacle in the unleashing of the productive forces, and the fate of the great masses of the people depends on the liquidation and complete overthrow of this obsolete and bankrupt production relation. Hence, the contradiction between feudalism and the masses of the people is one of the basic social contradictions in our society and can only be resolved by social revolution.

The second basic contradiction in Indian society at this stage is the contradiction between imperialism and the whole nation. British Imperialism refashioned Indian feudalism and made it. Its main social base for the ruthless plunder of India’s resources in the colonial period. When British capitalism reached the stage of finance capital being exported entailing the further industrialization of India for British imperial interests, the protection and maintenance of semi-
feudal relations in the countryside became an absolute necessity to ward off the threat of indigenous capitalist developments in India which would have destroyed feudalism and striven to establish an independent capitalist state, under normal conditions. This process was no longer possible after the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, and in the epoch of imperialism, when the colonial bourgeoisies of the oppressed countries, fearing for their money bags more than for the independence of their countries, went over to the camp of imperialism.

British imperialism, weakened and in grave crisis after the second world war was forced to transfer power to the landlords and comprador capitalist in India, turning it from a colony into a semi-feudal, semi- colonial country, exploited and dominated now no longer by a single imperialist power, but by a number of contending imperialist powers.

However, the fundamental economic interests of imperialism as a whole, continued to be served by retaining the basic feudal social relations in the countryside which forms the main social base of imperialist exploitation and retards the nature i.e., capitalist development of productive forces. As a result, Indian capitalism in the interest of country can only develop in a deformed and distorted way, not relying on the development of a home market which is the primary factor for genuine capitalist growth but operating on an extremely narrow home base, oriented almost wholly towards export of the national produce on unequal terms and throw away prices to serve the interests of imperialism and social imperialism in the main.

Thus, the second contradiction basic to Indian society at this stage is the contradiction between imperialism and the whole nation.

Unquestionably then, the main task of the social revolution at this stage is to overthrow the two main enemies of the Indian people to carry out a democratic revolution against feudal oppression and a national liberation to overthrow imperialist aggression. These two basic tasks are interrelated. Unless imperialist rule is terminated, the feudal-landlord class cannot be overthrown because imperialism is its main support. Equally, unless the peasants are mobilized to overthrow the feudal landlord class it will be impossible to build powerful revolutionary contingents to overthrow imperialism because feudalism is the main social base of imperialism and the peasantry is the main force in the Indian revolution.

Basic contradiction will remain unchanged throughout the stage of revolution, but the principal contradiction will change its position in the process of development. This means in the process of development the position of the principal contradiction keep on changing as the political situation develops under a given phase of development which plays the leading role at a given phase.
Basic contradiction determines the stage of revolution but principal contradiction determines the political tactical line at particular phase.

The Principal Contradiction

Mao Tse Tung in his ‘On Contradiction’ has pointed out that at every stage in the development of a process, there is only one principal contradiction which plays the leading role. (1) “Hence if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position.”

(2) “When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national wars against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned, becomes the principal contradiction, while all other contradictions among the various classes within country(including what was the principal contradiction between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are relegated to a secondary and subordinate position.”

(3) “But in another situation, the contradiction changes its position. When imperialism carries on its operation not by war but by wider means- political, economic and cultural ruling classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism and the two form an alliance for the joint operation of the masses of the people. At such a time, the masses often resort to civil war against the alliance of imperialism and feudal classes, while imperialism often employs indirect method rather than direct action in helping the reactionaries in the semi -feudal, semi-colonial countries to oppress the people, thus the internal contradictions become particularly sharp.”

It is apparent that the first situation  (1) refers to history when China was a feudal country during the period of Opium War, in 1840, Sino- Japanese war of 1894 or XIHUAN war of 1900, sector Japanese association when the contradiction between the feudal system and the great masses of the people was the principal contradiction, and when due to the direct imperialist war of aggression, China was being reduced to the position of a colony (some parts) and semi colony. Here the clause, “and so it is now in the present Sino- Japanese War” only refers to the changes that have taken place due to the direct imperialist aggression in the present tense. It has nothing to do with the principal contradiction between feudal system and the great masses of the people written in the past tense. But Charu Mazumdar has distorted the whole thing, and quoted it out of the contest. This is the anarchism at the ideological plane. It is further clear by studying the second situation (2) when an alliance between imperialism and feudalism is formed against the broad masses of the people. It becomes and remains the principal contradiction under the semi feudal semi colonial conditions of economy.

The theory of alliance of imperialism (including comprador bureaucratic capitalism) and feudalism against the broad masses of Indian people has been accepted by 1951 programme of undivided CPI adopted first by all India party conference in Oct 1951, endorsed by the third congress of the party held in Madurai. This Programme for the first time accepted India as a semi feudal, semi colonial society.

“The basic conflict( Principal contradiction) in Indian society is the conflict between imperialism, comprador bourgeoisie and feudalism on the one hand, and the entire Indian people including national bourgeoisie on the other hand.”

It can thus be safely concluded that, The alliance of imperialism with comprador bourgeoisie and feudalism against the broad masses of people should be accepted as the principal contradiction. This will qualitatively enlarge the scope of class struggle throughout the country. “This class struggle will include all the struggles of all the people of all the areas including urban as well as rural areas”. We should emphasis ‘working class peasant alliance’. “Under the leadership of working class” as the core of our New Democratic Front Alliance of the enemies can be fought effectively only by the alliance of the people as the core of New Democratic Front. It means that we have our class enemies both in cities as well as villages. It also means that we have our class friends both in cities as well as villages.

Conclusion :

With this analysis we can conclude that at present immediate main task is to launch struggle against the alliance in order to advance the struggle for New Democratic Revolution. We therefore need to rally- organize-and unite the landless labour, poor peasants, middle peasants and other sections of rural poor with landless labour and poor peasants as its core for the abolition of Semi colonial- Semi Feudal system around the central slogan ‘Land to the tillers and to resist the semi feudal authority, exploitation and along with this we should organize the peasantry to oppose the imperialists and multinationals penetration in Agriculture.

While developing struggle against landlords - big bourgeoisie -imperialists combine and their so called developmental policy, let us evolve and practice all forms of alternative system for future society.


Visitors">free counters